Gonzales Must Go

Traditionally, the Attorney General of the United States has been the Attorney for the United States, not the legal buttboy for the President. This has borne out over many generations, with a few notable exceptions, most of whom ended up in disgrace.

Gonzales is now warning, forcefully, judges and justices, not to 'substitute their personal views for the president's judgments in wartime.'

He said the Constitution makes the president commander in chief and the Supreme Court has long recognized the president's pre-eminent role in foreign affairs. "The Constitution, by contrast, provides the courts with relatively few tools to superintend military and foreign policy decisions, especially during wartime," the attorney general told a conference on the judiciary at Georgetown University Law Center.

"Judges must resist the temptation to supplement those tools based on their own personal views about the wisdom of the policies under review," Gonzales said.

And he said the independence of federal judges, who are appointed for life, "has never meant, and should never mean, that judges or their decisions should be immune" from public criticism.

"Respectfully, when courts issue decisions that overturn long-standing traditions or policies without proper support in text or precedent, they cannot _ and should not _ be shielded from criticism," Gonzales said. "A proper sense of judicial humility requires judges to keep in mind the institutional limitations of the judiciary and the duties expressly assigned by the Constitution to the more politically accountable branches."

Just impeach his ass.

Shrillness Rules

Atrios wants us all to be 'shrill', since the whole quiet 'lambs to the slaughter' meme isn't working. Cenk (at HuffPo) seems to be catching the spirit:

When we fight back against the Republicans on an issue of colossal importance like the new Torture Bill, I often hear from people that we shouldn't do it because "we have to win" politically. To which I want to scream - No shit, Sherlock!

Really, you wanted to win? I never thought of that.

...

On the other hand, if you fight all the time, you fight hard, you fight sloppy, you fight clean, you fight with conviction - you become a fighter. And then people get scared of you! They know to not even nominate a guy like Sam Alito because he won't have a chance. You'll rip him apart in the hearings.

Yes, you might screw up a couple of things along the way, but in the end, you send the message. We are strong and we will not back down under any circumstances. We are fighters!

We will fight to protect the United States, we will fight to protect the constitution, we will fight for our laws, we will fight for our values, we will fight for you and your family, we will fight for morality and we will fight to keep you safe and America proud.

That's how you win.

...

And through all of these losses, I have been told that "we have to win." I'm going to put that down in the ironic category. As long as we don't root out this loser mentality that the Republicans will beat us up if we dare to take them on, we will never win first.

Even if the Democrats manage to take one of the Houses of Congress this election because of historic mistakes by the Republicans (and then they'll be all proud as if they earned it - this is the worst administration in history, you should be wiping the floors with them), you think they're going to stand up then?

I'm not so sure. I know there are genuine fighters on the Democratic side. I know a majority of the party voted the right way on this torture bill. I know they are infinitely better than the Republicans who don't just assent to the idea of torture and secret detentions, they relish it.

My guess is that people like Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Louise Slaughter are going to take the fight to these guys. But I am not at all sure the rest of the party will follow. I can see it now - you don't want to seem too partisan by doing hearings before the 2008 election, remember we have to win in 2008 ...

Wrong, Unconstitutional

From WaPo:

Speaking about today's passage of the execrable Detainee Bill:

"This is wrong. It is unconstitutional. It is un-American," said Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the committee's top Democrat. He said it was intended to choke off access to Guantanamo to "ensure that the Bush-Cheney administration will never again be embarrassed by a United States Supreme Court decision reviewing its unlawful abuses of power."

Most Republicans said lawsuits from Guantanamo inmates were clogging the courts and detracted from the war on terrorism.

Those poor courts; wouldn't want to overwhelm with having to do justice things or anything... how pre-9/11!

Froomkin Speaks

From today's White House Briefing:

Today's Senate vote on President Bush's detainee legislation, after House approval yesterday, marks a defining moment for this nation.

How far from our historic and Constitutional values are we willing to stray? How mercilessly are we willing to treat those we suspect to be our enemies? How much raw, unchecked power are we willing to hand over to the executive?

The legislation before the Senate today would ban torture, but let Bush define it; would allow the president to imprison indefinitely anyone he decides falls under a wide-ranging new definition of unlawful combatant; would suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus; would immunize retroactively those who may have engaged in torture. And that's just for starters.

It's a red-letter day for the country. It's also a telling day for our political system.

The people have lost confidence in their president. Despite that small recent uptick in the polls, Bush remains deeply unpopular with the American public, mistrusted by a majority, widely considered out of touch with the nation's real priorities.

But he's still got Congress wrapped around his little finger.

Today's vote will show more clearly than ever before that, when push comes to shove, the Republicans who control Congress are in lock step behind the president, and the Democrats -- who could block him, if they chose to do so -- are too afraid to put up a real fight.

The kind of emotionless, he-said-she-said news coverage, lacking analysis and obsessed with incremental developments and political posturing -- in short, much of modern political journalism -- just doesn't do this story justice.

Detainee Court Access Amendment Voted Down

In a narrow victory, more notable for the fact that Republican defections outnumbered Democratic, the Senate voted down the Specter-Leahy amendment that would have allowed detainees the right to challenge their incarceration in court.

The Senate today narrowly rejected a measure that would have allowed suspected terrorists to challenge their detention in federal court, as the body moved closer to passing a White House-backed bill to authorize special military tribunals for detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

In a key vote on an amendment sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the Senate voted 51 to 48 against deleting from the bill a provision that rules out habeas corpus petitions for foreigners held in the war on terrorism. The writ of habeas corpus, which is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, allows people to challenge in court the legality of their detention, essentially meaning that they cannot be held indefinitely without charge or trial.

In the vote on the Specter-Leahy amendment, 43 Democrats and one independent were joined by four Republicans in the unsuccessful effort to include the provision. Fifty Republicans and one Democrat voted against the amendment, and one Republican did not cast a vote.

The four Republican senators voting for the measure were Lincoln D. Chafee of Rhode Island, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Specter. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the lone Democrat to vote against it. Not voting was Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Me.).

This bill is an abomination. This amendment, while only a bit of lace and silk piled on Frankenstein's monster, was at least a baby step in the right direction. Every Senator who voted for this has abrogated his duties to 'protect and defend' and forfeited his right to BE a Senator. Find out if your Senator voted against the amendment and vote him, if you have to wait another four years for the opportunity. This is treason.

Cenk Strikes Again

Cenk Uygur, at HuffPo, has a great rant about the Detainee Bill (why don't we call it what it is, the End of America as We Know It Bill?) He sums it all up pretty well.

I can understand if the average citizen doesn't comprehend the idea of habeas corpus, but a United States senator? It is the foundation of western government. An accused must be allowed to see a judge. If the executive branch has the sole authority to hold people indefinitely without ever charging them, we cease to be a civilized country. That is nearly the textbook definition of tyranny. What is left of America?!

What have you let Al Qaeda do to us? You let them win by destroying who we are.

No more excuses. Any Republican who votes for this tomorrow can never be called anything but radical. Any journalist that calls any of them moderate again should be fired on the spot. Any Democrat who votes for this is the worst kind of coward. I am tired of giving them one more chance. Stand up, you spineless weaklings. You have the right to filibuster to protect all of us against this very thing. Use it!!!

There's also a link to the very powerful NYT editorial blasting the bill, the Congress, and the Admin.

NIE Release Causes Ruckus

Keep lying and getting caught at it long enough, and even the Gang of 500 may start to question your veracity. Wapo on the NIE release:

In announcing yesterday that he would release the key judgments of a controversial National Intelligence Estimate, President Bush said he agreed with the document's conclusion "that because of our successes against the leadership of al-Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent."

But the estimate itself posits no such cause and effect. Instead, while it notes that counterterrorism efforts have seriously damaged and disrupted al-Qaeda's leadership, it describes the spreading "global jihadist movement" as fueled largely by forces that al-Qaeda exploits but is not actively directing. They include Iraq, corrupt and unjust governments in Muslim-majority countries, and "pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment among most Muslims."

...

In describing Iraq as "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists," the document judges that real and perceived insurgent successes there will "inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere," while losses would have the opposite effect. It predicts that the elimination of al-Qaeda leaders, particularly Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed after the estimate was completed in April, would probably leave that organization splintered into disparate groups that "for at least a time, pose a less serious threat to U.S. interests" than the current al-Qaeda structure.

John at AmericaBlog has a wrap-up of media response.

Larry Johnson on the NIE

At TPM, Larry Johnson analyzes and explains a lot about the NIE; the hows, whys, and wherefores. Good Stuff, with some useful links as well.

The NIE That Wasn't...

..er isn't ... er, whatever. Hot on the news that Shrub will release the Iraq NIE that has everyone's panties in a wad (although scrubbed to non-existence, I'm sure), comes the news that there's ANOTHER Iraq NIE, only apparently, it's so bad that Bu$hCo decided NOT to call it an NIE, cuz those have to be shared with the boys on the Hill, and you can't trust them not to air you undies, particularly if they're slightly soiled.

Bolton Nomination Dead?

Looks like they've finally driven a stake through this puppy.

WTF?

The FBI has apparently started talking about the anthrax attacks again. You remember. As the dust of 9/11 settled, five people were killed by anthrax which was sent through the mail, some of it to Capitol Hill. A lot of sound and fury at the time, then nothing, absolute silence for five years. And now, there's 'word' that the FBI is 'widening' its investigation (really? NOW?) It also appears that a lot of what we were told about the anthrax in 2001 was (gasp!) incorrect (and not in the 'erring on the side of caution' sense!) So, now, five years later, with massively lowered rhetoric, the FBI makes announcements about it. If this weren't election related, why announce anything now? It's not like the public is clamoring for updates on on-going investigation. In lower profile cases like this, is it usual for the FBI to announce anything but an arrest (they don't like to look incompetent and anything short of an arrest appears incompetent.) Is it just an attempt to rile the electorate and add additional 'you're all going to DIE!!!!! if you don't re-elect us Repugs!' factor to the election? Booman sums it up best (not just for THIS, but for any subject discussed by the Govt): Here's a piece of advice: Believe nothing this administration tells you. Nothing. Either they were lying then or they are lying now. Booman has a good then and now comparison of FBI statements that highlights the hypocrisy. And in this administration, if you can highlight an hypocrisy, you've got good aim.....

What's Wrong with the MSM......

... in four easy pictures.

It's Official

The War in Iraq is crippling the War on Terror and making the whole situation worse.

Wanna Scare Yourself Shitless?

Read Gary Hart's little ditty (at HuffPo) on the possible (probable?) run up to trashing Iran. The really scary part is that every word makes sense, and that should scare the shit out of you if nothing else.

The steps will be these: Air Force tankers will be deployed to fuel B-2 bombers, Navy cruise missile ships will be positioned at strategic points in the northern Indian Ocean and perhaps the Persian Gulf, unmanned drones will collect target data, and commando teams will refine those data. The latter two steps are already being taken.

Then the president will speak on national television. He will say this: Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons; if this happens, the entire region will go nuclear; our diplomatic efforts to prevent this have failed; Iran is offering a haven to known al Qaeda leaders; the fate of our ally Israel is at stake; Iran persists in supporting terrorism, including in Iraq; and sanctions will have no affect (and besides they are for sissies). He will not say: ...and besides, we need the oil.

...

In more rational times, including at the height of the Cold War, bizarre actions such as unilateral, unprovoked, preventive war are dismissed by thoughtful, seasoned, experienced men and women as mad. But those qualities do not characterize our current leadership.

For a divinely guided president who imagines himself to be a latter day Winston Churchill (albeit lacking the ability to formulate intelligent sentences), and who professedly does not care about public opinion at home or abroad, anything is possible, and dwindling days in power may be seen as making the most apocalyptic actions necessary.

Clinton Slays Anti-Christ!!!

Film at ThinkProgress!

It's always amazed me that the able, useful, brilliant Mike begat the useless, pointless, sack o'shit Chris. Well, young Mr Wallace bit off a trifle more than he could chew when he tried to ambush Big Bill on Faux News the other day (for broadcast this morning.) The transcripts have been all over the blogosphere this week, and were great reading; the clips are finally hitting the net, and are even better watching. Go watch a master bitchslap a lying cunt of a Fauxnews operative and enjoy the sport of it all. And pretend ANYONE in the Dem Party today could do the same with the same panache.

(Transcript also available at the link above)

Broder-ific

I link to the Washington Post a lot for news, but not much for commentary (except Dan Froomkin's White House Briefing, which is indispensable reading), and today's column from 'the Dean', David Broder, shows why.

Broder has been almost desperate in his heaping of praise on the 'Independents' (the three torture compromisers and Joementum, primarily) and seeking bipartisanship more desperately than Diogenes looked for a non-Repug. It's been almost funny, but today's column is just over the top. I think Broder must have vacationed in some sunny clime without a hat.

All Torture, All the Time....

Nathan Hammersmith at dKos has a great summation of the quality of McCain, et al, in Rebels? Mavericks? Assholes, More Like. Great read.

So, to the media, I say this: If spineless wretches like John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham are rebels and mavericks, then what the holy fuck are Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, Jesus, Cesar Chavez, Rosa Parks, Marcus Garvey or John/Robert Kennedy, say, now that "rebel" and "maverick" mean "dickless bastard with a seriously damaged moral compass who'd happily give the thumbs-up to whatever a depravity-addled child of privilege desires"? I'll tell you what they are: mavericks and rebels. As for McCain, Warner and Graham, they're partisan shitfucks who put their country's welfare - and its citizens - dead last.

Again, to the media: fuck you very much.

Nathan needs to learn to let go and say what he feels.

Bin Laden Dead.....Again.....

I want to see a body. Habeas Corpus, baby! Till I see a body, I ain't givin' up my duct tape!

Why electing Dems matters

mcjoan at dKos has a great post on the torture debacle and ends with the following, which pretty much sums it all up neatly:

The New York Times and the Washington Post have now both laid bare the truth about the would-be maverick GOP rebels. It comes down to this: the only way the Bush administration will be held accountable is with a Democratic Congress. The only opposition this administration will ever have is from Democrats.

That has to start now. The Democrats have been absent from this debate for too long. Going to the mattresses on this legislation is not only the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do. The American people, the media, the Democratic base have to know that finally, there is a line over which this administration and it's enablers like McCain and all his Rubberstamp colleagues can't go. That's the line that further diminishes our moral standing in the world, that endangers our own men and women in uniform, that is one more step toward the coronation of the worst president in our history as king.

Oh Jeez

Well, we all pretty much knew it would happen, but sorta hoped, somehow, the Rebel Repugs would grow a set and actually stand up to the Preznit. But, wishes not being fishes, they didn't and we're all fucked. The not-so-big three, Warner, Graham, and McCain, basically caved in to the Presidiot's demands and gave him most of what he wanted.

This is going to shred what's left of our reputation in world circles, inflame the Muslim 'street', and put our troops, in Iraq and anywhere there's conflict, in more danger. TPM reader JC spells this out pretty bleakly.

Wapo:

THE GOOD NEWS about the agreement reached yesterday between the Bush administration and Republican senators on the detention, interrogation and trial of accused terrorists is that Congress will not -- as President Bush had demanded -- pass legislation that formally reinterprets U.S. compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Nor will the Senate explicitly endorse the administration's use of interrogation techniques that most of the world regards as cruel and inhumane, if not as outright torture. Trials of accused terrorists will be fairer than the commission system outlawed in June by the Supreme Court.

The bad news is that Mr. Bush, as he made clear yesterday, intends to continue using the CIA to secretly detain and abuse certain terrorist suspects. He will do so by issuing his own interpretation of the Geneva Conventions in an executive order and by relying on questionable Justice Department opinions that authorize such practices as exposing prisoners to hypothermia and prolonged sleep deprivation. Under the compromise agreed to yesterday, Congress would recognize his authority to take these steps and prevent prisoners from appealing them to U.S. courts. The bill would also immunize CIA personnel from prosecution for all but the most serious abuses and protect those who in the past violated U.S. law against war crimes.

In short, it's hard to credit the statement by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) yesterday that "there's no doubt that the integrity and letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions have been preserved." In effect, the agreement means that U.S. violations of international human rights law can continue as long as Mr. Bush is president, with Congress's tacit assent. If they do, America's standing in the world will continue to suffer, as will the fight against terrorism.

Update: Wapo has a compelling column by Vladimir Bukovsky, who knows whereof he speaks, when he talks about the slippery slope this will be for us if we go the “torture is okay” route.

One nasty morning Comrade Stalin discovered that his favorite pipe was missing. Naturally, he called in his henchman, Lavrenti Beria, and instructed him to find the pipe. A few hours later, Stalin found it in his desk and called off the search. "But, Comrade Stalin," stammered Beria, "five suspects have already confessed to stealing it."

Also out of the Wapo family, Dan Froomkin’s White House Briefing starts out perfectly:

Pay no attention to the news stories suggesting that the White House caved in yesterday.

On the central issue of whether the CIA should continue using interrogation methods on suspected terrorists that many say constitute torture, the White House got its way, winning agreement from the "maverick" Republican senators who had refused to go along with an overt undoing of the Geneva Conventions.

The "compromise"? The Republican senators essentially agreed to look the other way.

Once again (see Monday's column ) there was so much disingenuousness flying through the airwaves that straight news reporting simply wasn't up to the task of conveying the real meaning of the day.